Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Superseded concern

This is an issue I've asked about in passing, but I'm hoping for a more concrete answer now that WP:ARBPIA5 has concluded. One of the primary challenges around contentious topics, including ARBPIA but also a few other CTOP/GS areas like AMPOL and RUSUKR, is that editors who frequent the area will engage in long-term WP:CPUSH. Editors who are openly hostile are easily dealt with, but it's still ambiguous as to how we address subtle POV pushing besides opening arbcom cases.

I was concerned that the committee was discouraging discretionary topic bans at AE, but {{u|Moneytrees}} provided a response saying that arbcom is "explicitly not" against such sanctions and that admins are not interpreting it otherwise.

My question is twofold. First, what is the general opinion of admins (active at AE or otherwise) on the subject of sanctions for editors who edit or !vote in a way that consistently favors one ideological position in a CTOP? Second, what is the standard of evidence or the type of diffs necessary to open an AE request for such editing? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:Maybe there should be a separate notice board for POV pushing like there is for edit warring? Kowal2701 (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Yesterday, I filled out an AE form for the first time, and in the section titled "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it," for the evidence that came from talk page comments, I gave comment links rather than diffs, with the thought that it enabled people to more easily see the comment in context, whereas with a diff it's not possible to see subsequent responses without extra work. Another editor asked me to replace all of the comment links with diffs, which I did. I totally understand why we should give diffs for article edits. But I'm still wondering why it must be a diff for talk comments, when (as I see it) a link to the comment provides more information. Would someone mind explaining the reason? FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:The point is at least partially so that reviewing admins don't need to verify that the comment is genuine and hasn't since been changed. JensonSL (SilverLocust) 22:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused. At this point several admins have indicated they haven't come to a decision. Are they awaiting further mitigating remarks from me, or for further admins to respond. If the former, it would be useful to know what they are looking for. -- Colin°^Talk 13:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:AE decisions happen by rough consensus, so we're waiting for that to form. The parties have given us all the shape of the conflict by now, and made clear their positions, so unless there's late-breaking evidence there's not much for you or others to say at this time. If a sanctions proposal is put on the table (which it's not yet clear will happen), there might be more room for your participation, e.g. to say you'd be amenable to a specific sanction or to propose a counter-offer; in that eventuality I'd be fine with giving you a limited extension to reply on that front. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. -- Colin°^Talk 14:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Tamzin! Could I have a small extension? Since everyone is discussing different options for resolution, I had a small one I wanted to propose that just came to mind. Snokalok (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin. If Loki's rather late post has any bearing on a admin's decisions, I would like a chance to respond to it. Otherwise I take your earlier point about largely ignoring them. -- Colin°^Talk 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I do not think it will, since it does not cite any evidence. If an admin responds to it favorably, I'd be inclined to grant an extension.

:P.S., I've written a new essay, User:Tamzin/Arbspace word limits. Bit late for this thread, but maybe of use for the future. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have obviously responded to that point. As of now it hasn't changed my thinking, but I have opened the door to further comments. If in response to my request there's something that causes me to consider changing my suggested outcome I will grant you an extension. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::User:Tamzin It's late here. Either you've misread my text or I've misread your reaction. I've replied. I'm off to bed. -- Colin°^Talk 22:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I have started a discussion here that watchers of this page may be interested in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I would like to post two sentences (52 words) in response to Voort's posts. -- Colin°^Talk 17:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Granted. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I would like permission to post 100 words in response to SarekOfVulcan's post. -- Colin°^Talk 17:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Four hours have passed and I suspect the admin squabble below has meant this request got lost. I'm going to bed shortly. So I'm going to take a punt and post it anyway. I can't imagine any just refusal considering SarekOfVulcan just joined in and is is speculating over my hypothetical future misbehaviour. -- Colin°^Talk 21:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::I am not an admin but I would like to suggest to you that:

::a) as pure advice, responding to everything someone else says that is contrary to your position is usually not wise even if you are trying to defend yourself in a proceeding against you

::b) doing so without an explicit extension when you're already at over 1700 words is certainly not wise Loki (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::While we’re adding pure advice, I’m going to say that - perhaps this is just a function of me being a zoomer - but, doing this [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Voorts&diff=prev&oldid=1291949664] at an admin who is deciding whether or not to impose sanctions on you, does not seem like an ideal move. Snokalok (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::I was inclined to say no, but rather than saying no I thought I'd leave it for some other admin to consider. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Barkeep49, et al, can we at least have a moratorium on new admins and additional negative remarks about me, my past, or my hypothetical future behaviour. You can surely make a decision, consensus or no-consensus, after almost seven thousand admin words already. There are over 440 active admins and I could do with a good night's sleep, which I haven't for 10 days. -- Colin°^Talk 16:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:I am certainly sympathetic to the stress this has caused and am sorry to hear about that impact on you. It's why I was trying to move us to consensus a week ago and why I encouraged a closing yesterday. But I have no ability to place any kind of moratorium on other admins. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yet you can place a moratorium on me. This is not how I view Wikipedia. Editors and admins are equals, just you guys have some extra buttons on your UI. This cruel "trainwreck" isn't my fault. -- Colin°^Talk 17:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how clerking works here but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1292580744 this] response to {{u|Tryptofish}} by {{u|Graham_Beards}} is in the wrong section. Could someone please move it down? Loki (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, and it strikes me as rather unbecoming for an administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's been dealt with. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Now {{u|Graham Beards}} is commenting about me in the section for uninvolved administrators. Since he is an involved administrator, his newest comment should really be moved to his own section. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Given that the context of their past participation is included in the subthread where they made this comment and that there are no new allegations being made, my inclination is to leave the matter be at this time. Also, per the 2-party rule adopted after ARBPIA5, if the conclusion is that Graham Beards' cannot comment on this topic as an uninvolved admin, then the comment should simply be removed, as only uninvolved admins are allowed to raise concerns within an AE report regarding the conduct of editors other than the filer and the "defendant" (in this case, RelmC and Colin), and an involved editor would be asked to file a separate report if they wanted to raise substantive concerns regarding your conduct. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks, Rosguill, and I appreciate the work you have been doing about this. I, too, was thinking about this in relation to the 2-party rule. I also think that I have been very transparent about my past history here, so the uninvolved admins already have the information that they need in order to weigh my comments appropriately. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with Rosguill that if Graeme is not an uninvolved admin the comment should be removed. But what is the thinking behind why Graeme is not an uninvolved admin? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Since you ask, I think it's contained in what Rosguill wrote in reply to Graeme in the results section where these comments are. I could expand further (other past events), but I won't, due to the 2-party rule, and the fact that I want this thing to get wrapped up, not to metastasize even farther. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|Barkeep49}} Graham's only two comments at AE that I was able to find in a search going back to before their re-sysop were both made as a participant commenting in defense of Colin's editing of GENSEX topics, in October 2023 and September 2024. That may have otherwise flown under the radar, but given that the extent of their argument against Tryptofish's participation is that Tryptofish was not a party to the dispute and is unfairly rehashing old grudges, it seemed a bit hypocritical. The situation is admittedly complicated by the fact that Graham's initial comment was inserted as a threaded reply to Tryptofish in Tryptofish's section, and was only moved to the admin section by me, so Graham hasn't exactly asserted that they're either involved or uninvolved. I could see valid cause for complaint if they were to proceed to issue a unilateral sanction, or extensively argue for a particular outcome, but that has not occurred and seems unlikely to occur at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's not clear to me that admins can't post in another's section, but it certainly isn't ever done (as compared to ARC or ARCA where Arbs definitely can but it remains unusual for an arb to do so or proposed decision discussion pages where arbs do reply in others sections regularly). Regardless that makes a good case for why Graeme shouldn't be considered an uninvolved admin for the discussion about Colin. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Parsing this out a bit further, I agree with Rosguill that Graeme has never explicitly asserted whether or not he is involved (but in my opinion, he should know), and I also think Barkeep49 has it right that Graeme should henceforth be considered involved. It might follow logically that the thing to do now is to remove all three comments in the results section (Graeme's comment moved there by Rosguill, Rosguill's reply, and Graeme's subsequent reply), or to relocate all three of them to a section for comments from Graeme, but I don't feel strongly about that. I want to assert that Graeme's original comment to me in my section was entirely one of implying that I had acted disruptively in participating here, on the basis that I was acting out of an old grudge – but I also assert that I have, in fact, been transparent about that from the very first comment that I made here, so I'm very confident that I did nothing to mislead the admins. As noted, if anyone feels otherwise, the 2-party rule applies. There's also the reasonable concern about how much weight the admins should give to my opinions, and I have no problem with that, but that concern should be raised outside of the section for uninvolved admins. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Moved from the Colin AE discussion

...(Failing that, my meta-opinion is that there's no such thing as "no consensus" between two options with a rough-consensus standard, and that, with all arguments having been reasonable, the warning/FoF would pass by simple headcount.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't anticipate having time to weigh in adequately on the main substance of this report in a timely fashion, and stepped in over the possibly-involved-admin issue because it seemed relatively bite sized, and like it could otherwise further delay admins discussing the main outcome if left unaddressed. I do however agree with your meta-opinion in abstract, that in a rough consensus tie between two sanctions at AE, the lesser sanction should be adopted in the absence of consensus for the stronger one (provided that there isn't some special case that would make the lesser sanction somehow directly counterproductive on its own) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Well, in this case I at least have argued that a lesser sanction would be counterproductive, but my meta-opinion is just based on the idea that a simple headcount can constitute rough consensus if no greater degree of consensus is available. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I think that headcount needs to be something that arguably has 50%+ of admins rather than mere plurality but I don't see that being an issue here as we've already combined various nuances/positions to get to two options which I think is something the rough consensus also encourages us to do. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::By counterproductive, I was thinking more along the lines of "creates a perverse incentive". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't agree with that meta-opinion. Plenty of discussions that use the rough consensus standard (e.g., AfD) result in no consensus outcomes. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::I authored the phrase "rough consensus" in CTOP and regret that it has been somewhat ambiguous. I'm in agreement with voorts that a 50/50 split between "no action" and "some action" is generally no consensus (not rough consensus for any option). To the extent that it's a 50/50 split between a lesser sanction and a greater sanction (defined as a sanction that prohibits all the same conduct as the lesser sanction and more), those advocating for a greater sanction are also implicitly saying the lesser sanction is warranted, so the consensus ought to be interpreted for the lesser sanction. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I mean if we're talking about authorial intent I co-authored that with you. I don't think anything either of us has said contradict each other. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with CaptainEek, SFR, and Seraphimblade. When there is a true split in opinion, and both sides have reasonable positions, the only possible outcome is "no consensus". voorts (talk/contributions) 02:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• A rough consensus is a consensus that is rough. I reject any sort of numerical approach. For some issues, a 50/50 split is no consensus. Sometimes it is still a rough consensus for a particular outcome, especially because most of Wikipedia is not a vote. Plenty of Wikipedia works on rough consensus. I also reject that a lesser sanction should be favored over a stronger sanction when opinions are close. Might it be sometimes wise to do less? Sure. But as a matter of course? No. AE admins need leeway to make this process work. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:For me, what makes a rough consensus is that it doesn't necessarily match up exactly with what individuals want. It's sort of a compromise solution that tries to make things work while addressing most concerns, and that makes those who formed the consensus say, "well, I guess that's about the best we can expect from that. I accept that result."

:I agree with Kevin that supporting a higher tier sanction implicitly supports a lower tier, but in the current situation there is explicit rejection of a lesser sanction which changes the rough consensus calculation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• If I'm closing an AfD, and there's roughly equal support for "redirect" and "delete", that's a consensus that there shouldn't be a separate article on the subject, and in that case I go with the "lesser" remedy of redirect (presumably, those arguing to delete would still be mostly satisfied with that as the outcome). On the other hand, if those arguing to delete explicitly say "I don't think this should be a redirect because (insert reason here) and I explicitly want deletion", that may change the calculation. So, it can be implied that support for the greater is also at least some support for the lesser, but if the person making the argument explicitly rejects that and makes clear they support only the greater remedy, they should be considered as in opposition to the lesser one. In practice, that could mean a "no consensus" outcome that results in nothing happening, but well, that was their call. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• In content disputes, regular editors are encouraged to find ways to get to consensus. This can mean altering one's initial position after hearing subsequent comments, in order to find consensus. It can mean being flexible, for the sake of the greater good. It does not mean "you have to have unanimous consent, and I'm going to hold my ground until the rest of you agree with me." It does not mean "let's wikilawyer the true meaning of consensus." Editors who make a habit of doing those latter things find themselves in hot water. Here, we have had a bunch of the most experienced and respected administrators who have failed to demonstrate an understanding of what regular editors are expected to know. All this discussion about how to define "rough consensus" misses the elephant in the room: that no consensus was reached, of any kind. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't think any of us were looking for unanimous consent; there were two camps that were at opposite ends of the sanction spectrum and strong arguments on both sides. We can't always reach consensus. Sometimes, a group of people are not going to agree on a course of action, no matter how hard they might try. I also don't think a good faith discussion clarifying what "rough consensus" means in the context of AE is wikilawyering. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Cold comfort. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I mean, I actually read that discussion as having consensus for both outcomes. Not everyone supported either possibility, but most people were OK with both of them. There were only a handful of hard holdouts. Loki (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi AE admins! Template:Contentious topics/talk notice has been expanded with additional functionality, designed to make it easier for you to tag articles. The quick version:

• You can now specify multiple CTOPs in a single banner! Just pass them as additional parameters (e.g. {{tlx|Contentious topics/talk notice|blp|ap|covid}})
• To facilitate this change, ||brief no longer works. You need to specify {{para|brief|yes}}.
• Page protection is automatically detected, so you no longer need to specify {{para|protection}}.
• {{t|Contentious topics/talk notice}} and {{t|Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} have been merged; specify restrictions as normal. For instance, {{tlc|Contentious topics/talk notice|ap|1RR=yes}}
• Topic-wide restrictions are automatically detected and enabled. So {{tlc|Contentious topics/talk notice|a-i}} automatically enables 1RR, ECR, and the 1,000 word limit.

Feedback welcome! Next on the list is better support for section-by-section specifications (for instance, to indicate that the entire article is a BLP but part of the article is covered by PIA). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @HouseBlaster, this sounds fantastic! The only issue I can see is that page protection isn't always done as an AE action but instead as a normal admin action. If it's a normal admin action it shouldn't be included in the template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::That is a great point—{{para|protection|yes}} indicates that the protection is an AE action. It populates :Category:Wikipedia pages about a contentious topic mislabelled as protected if the page is not actually protected but the parameter is provided. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@HouseBlaster, would it be worth clarifying to |aeprotection=y? Just thinking of my own possible future confusion. :) Valereee (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Great idea—I've added {{para|aeprotection}} work as an equivalent of {{para|protection}}. I don't think we should drop support of {{para|protection}} for backward compatibility; this enables admins who are in the habit of pre-modification syntax like {{para|protection|semi}} to continue what they are doing. (The old syntax still works, provided the page is actually protected.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Could I please have 400 words to respond to Extraordinary Writ's commentary on my evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist? Samuelshraga (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Granted, although I would encourage you to hold some of them in reserve. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Please could I have 200 words to respond to Silverseren's accusations about me in the same section, given that my conduct is within the scope of the filing and the accusations are serious. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Can I have 200 words to respond to Berchanhimez? Snokalok (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I have no problem with this extension being allowed if an admin agrees to it, since I figured people would want to respond to my statement and I came in quite late bringing up something "new" - namely the userpage. I don't think I'll need an extension at this time since I think I made my points clear and since they're mostly general in nature I don't think there will be more for me to say. But I'd like to reserve the right to request an extension to my statement if I feel it's necessary. This is the first time I've felt I needed to make such a long statement at AE - normally when I've contributed it's been clear cut "open/shut" cases with no extension necessary at all - so if I'm commenting here prematurely or inappropriately I apologize. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::In addition to the 200 words I've asked for to respond to Silverseren, I would like to request 100 words to add new evidence that pertains to YFNS. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Samuelshraga, @Snokalok, @Berchanhimez, I'm not sure responding to other commenters is helpful unless admins start talking about the information those commenters presented. If admins do start discussing, and you need to respond to that discussion, ask for an extension then. That said, no objection to any other admin giving these extensions. Valereee (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Valereee I appreciate the reply. I'll accept it with regards to my first request - I won't ask to respond in this filing to Silverseren's accusations unless admins consider them worth discussing. However, I don't think it addresses my request about new evidence pertaining to YFNS though, which is not a response to others' comments. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Samuelshraga, you can have 100 words. If you can say it in 25, I'd suggest doing so. Valereee (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Valereee thank you. Could you please update the word limit template to my section to reflect this? Samuelshraga (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::If I could figure out this new template, I'd be happy to. Valereee (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Extraordinary Writ/@Valereee I would like to file a case against VIR for longterm CPOV-pushing/PROFRINGE behavior. My current draft is about 800 words. I'll try and further cut it down (aiming for ~700), but may I be pre-emptively granted 1000 words for the initial statement and necessary follow-up statements? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::YFNS, I get that I made a pretty severe statement against you here, but can I recommend you not do this? Doing this will appear as retaliation for VIR trying to contribute to this discussion - in other words, a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. If you keep this up I'm going to ask for an extension here to the case against you to add/reference this comment and any further you make (including a case if you file one with or without an extension) as evidence of your battleground mentality in this topic area, and trying to push editors you disagree with out of the topic area. I'm not yet doing so - because I'm trying to give you the chance to reconsider this and retract this.{{pb}}If there is enough evidence against VIR there are at least half a dozen editors/admins who have contributed to the case against you that would be able to file such a case - even if you can't do so yourself (ex: if you end up topic banned). Let them take this on - don't add more fuel to the "fire" against you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, speaking only for myself, unless all of these diffs/arguments are so intertangled that none of them makes sense without all of them, I'd rather you gave us the three (or however many allows you to stay within the limit) very most compelling diffs and arguments and ended with, "I have another six (or however many) compelling diffs I'd like to present, but that takes me over the word limit". I believe @Tamzin has offered to help with crafting reasonable AE cases around GENSEX (Tamzin, forgive me if I dreamed that), perhaps she might help? Valereee (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Valereee}} Sorry to bug you, but I've been thinking about whether I wanted to ask for an extension or not to explain how the filing of the case against VIR ties in with the rest of my statement. It's less necessary since Springee has already referenced it in their statement, but I still think that it ties well in with my statement too about whether YFNS is a net positive in this topic area and battleground/"overwhelming others" behavior. If you think it would help, 150 words or so should be enough for me to tie in the timing of that request and the fact that at least two others have said they were working on a request but weren't ready to file yet. If you don't think it would help you and other admins to have it tied in directly to the comments I originally made, then no harm no foul. I get that this topic area (like Arab-Israeli conflict) is very difficult for AE so I will take no negativity if you think it's clear enough already and further comment from me would just make more words to sift through. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)